@ISIDEWITHQuestionselections8yrs ago

Should a politician, who has been formerly convicted of a crime, be allowed to run for office?

The U.S. constitution does not prevent convicted felons from holding the office of the President or a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives. States may prevent convicted felons candidates from holding statewide and local offices.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  National Liberalism

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.2k National Liberalism voters.

47%
Yes
53%
No
22%
Yes
52%
No
18%
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
1%
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
5%
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence
2%
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.2k National Liberalism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.2k National Liberalism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from National Liberalism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9WPNHYH from Arkansas  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, if someone can prove that even if they did commit a crime, they can do better than the other political opponent, then they should be allowed to run.

 @9TRBS6Xfrom Maryland  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, but the case should be resolved before in office and has to be extremely detrimental to security of the state.

 @9LC4TPN from Pennsylvania  answered…9mos9MO

Simply worried it can be used to go after political opponents. My understanding is Erdogan and Putin have jailed or got political opponents sued or in trouble as they ascended to power by taking advantage of a corrupted legal system. I think only in the cases of insurrection, treason, war crimes, or corruption should they be prevented and in fact in jail for life.

 @9HKX6M6from Maryland  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, as long as it was not an act of terrorism or treason and as long as they have finished serving their sentence

 @9DCJTSDfrom New York  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, as long as the crime wasn't violence or sexual abuse.

 @9D8M9R8from New York  answered…1yr1Y

It’s very nuanced

 @8RSB5S7answered…4yrs4Y

depends on the crime and conviction

 @8RQCWMVanswered…4yrs4Y

It depends on the nature of the crime, whether the sentence is completed, and particularly whether it was an abuse of power.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

No One’s Safe: Trump’s ‘Border Czar’ Homan Promises Sweeping Deportation Operation

TOM COTTON is slated to be the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, putting “I think mass deportation is just talk, but the era of open borders will be over,” Scott McConnell, a co-founder of The American Conservative, wrote on X. In July a Mexican-born Trump backer told The Times, “Last time, he didn’t even finish the wall. What’s he going to do this time?”Now the answer is taking shape: He’s going to oversee a militarized mass roundup of the undocumented. On Sunday, Trump named Tom Homan, his former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as “border czar.”In a speech to this year’s National Conservatism Conference, Homan, who oversaw Trump’s family separation policy, promised a “historic deportation operation” from which no undocumented immigrant would be safe. “No one’s off the table in the next administration,” he said. “If you’re here illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.”Then, on Monday, Trump named the obsessively anti-immigrant Stephen Miller as his deputy chief of staff. Miller’s portfolio, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan reported in The Times, “is expected to be vast and to far exceed what the eventual title will convey.” Miller has been forthright about his desire to purge immigrants here illegally, as well as many here legally, from the United States.Among other things, Miller has said that Trump would cancel the temporary protected status of thousands of Afghans who fled here after the Taliban’s takeover and take another stab at ending DACA, the program that protects from deportation some immigrants brought to the United States as children.Most significantly, he’s laid out plans to use National Guard troops to help arrest migrants en masse, warehousing them in military camps while they await deportation. No one should be shocked when this happens. I suspect some will be anyway.

▲  2811 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

A New Era for Crypto? Trump’s Transition Team Considers Robinhood Exec for SEC Chair

Trump transition team officials are considering retail brokerage Robinhood's top lawyer, as well as bank regulators and corporate attorneys, for a short list of key financial agency heads they expect to present to the president-elect soon, according to multiple people with knowledge of the matter.Among those being considered for chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission is Dan Gallagher, a Republican SEC commissioner from 2011 to 2015 who is currently chief legal and compliance officer at Robinhood, the people said.Gallagher, who is a popular pick among cryptocurrency executives who donated millions of dollars to Donald Trump's Republican campaign, is the front-runner at this point, although the discussions are fluid, two of the people said.Also in the mix for SEC chair is Paul Atkins, another former Republican SEC commissioner and CEO of consultancy Patomak Global Partners. Atkins served on Trump's transition team in 2016, when he was also a contender for the SEC chair role, Reuters reported at the time.Robert Stebbins, a partner at law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher who served as SEC general counsel during Trump's first administration, is also being discussed for the SEC short list.Trump transition team officials are compiling a short list of a handful of individuals for each financial agency which they will present to Trump, said two of the people. The process could take a few weeks, and it was still too early to say who would ultimately win the top jobs, the people said.Gallagher and Atkins did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. Stebbins declined to comment.In a statement, Karoline Leavitt, Trump's national press secretary, said: "President-Elect Trump will begin making decisions on who will serve in his second Administration soon. Those decisions will be announced when they are made."Trump's campaign courted crypto industry cash with promises to promote bitcoin and overhaul the SEC, whose Democratic chair, Gary Gensler, has cracked down hard on the industry, saying it has flouted SEC rules. Crypto companies have been pushing for an SEC chair who will quickly end his crackdown and tear up other unfriendly policies,.

▲  78 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

First Lady Feud: Melania Declines Biden Meet-Up Over Privacy Invasion

Melania Trump declined an offer to head to the White House Wednesday and meet with Jill Biden, citing the Biden administration’s raid on Mar-a-Lago as part of the federal government’s investigation into classified documents.“She ain’t going,” a source familiar with Melania’s decision told The Post. “Jill Biden’s husband authorized the FBI snooping through her underwear drawer. The Bidens are disgusting,” the source said.“Jill Biden isn’t someone Melania needs to meet,” the source added.Melania’s husband, President-elect Donald Trump, will sit with President Biden in the Oval Office Wednesday for a traditional post-election meeting.Typically, the first lady hosts her successor for tea in the White House.Melania visited the White House following her husband’s 2016 election win and received a tour from then- first lady Michelle Obama.After Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020, he failed to invite the Bidens to the White House before the Democrat officially assumed office, breaking the decades-old tradition, according to reports at the time.The Post has reached out to the Trump campaign and the White House about Melania’s decision to skip the meeting.The FBI raided Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 in its probe of the 45th president’s withholding of classified White House documents.Melania, 54, has previously voiced her displeasure over the raid at their Palm Beach, Florida, mansion.“Yeah, it made me angry,” she said on “Fox & Friends” in a September interview, calling it an “invasion of privacy.” FBI agents scoured Melania’s wardrobe, combed through her 78-year-old husband’s office and even reportedly searched one of her son Barron’s rooms.

▲  229 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4 days4D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  199 replies2 agree